User:DatGuy/Seba5tien

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me in the section below. Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Questions

Write any questions here! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do, thank you for setting up the course page! Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 12:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

While searching for vandalism under the changing height or weight tag, I came across a user who has made over twenty mobile edits – all to height/weight data of sportspeople. Is this classed as sneaky vandalism; should I warn them and/or notify AIV? Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 13:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seba5tien: I checked only one, and according to this, it was correct. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Materialscientist: you reverted this edit and gave the editor a warning about external links. However, the link was in a citation ({{cite web}}. Did you mean to give him a WP:EL warning? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback so far! Would it be possible to continue with the course content and add the two AIV rows later, once I have made these reports? Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 15:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Of course! Do whatever you want until the 'Please do not do this yet. Answer the questions above first' part. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Don't forget that also usernames that imply shared use can be reported. That falls under the 'staff' question. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! I'm still working on finding two AIV edits and one RPP. If it's alright to move on to the next section, I still have some time tonight. No problem if I still need to complete these bits first. Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you could do the AIV and RfPP edits, but if you'd really like to I suppose we can go ahead. Tell me if you do. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm happy to get the required edits done before we move on to the next section. Thanks! Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 17:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've got two successful AIV reports and one successful protection request recorded below. Thanks! Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 19:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Opening the section. Feel free to start whenever you want. I'll probably go to bed before I can review it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I believe I have now reached the end of the five-day monitoring period. Would it be possible to receive feedback and take the Final Test please? Also, is there a specified time limit for completing the test? Thanks! Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 09:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Seba5tien: Great timing! I'll open the test tomorrow. It would be nice if in your Twinkle settings you could make it that you have a CSD log (User:DatGuy/CSD_log), however it's fine. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Test is opened. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The start

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

 Already done I enabled and set up Twinkle after receiving autoconfirmed rights.

Good faith and vandalism

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

A good faith edit is made with helpful, curious or otherwise benign intentions. This might be in the form of a test edit in the mainspace, use of original research or a comment construed as a challenge towards another user. Good faith should be assumed because most users try to contribute positively to Wikipedia (e.g. being bold, even if the outcome leads to a minor mistake. Very new users and those contributing without an account (IP edits) may make several good faith mistakes while editing. Good faith edits are still open for comment and discussion and should be supported with helpful advice and reminders. Of course, these edits can be recognised by other users and reverted assuming good faith throughout.

Good faith is not vandalism, and should not be challenged as such, However, while good faith edits should not be considered ill-intentioned, assuming good faith is not always required. This usually applies in cases where an edit is clearly evidenced as vandalism. A vandalism edit is any edit of malice which carries the deliberate intention of damaging or otherwise affecting Wikipedia. Common examples of vandalism include malicious account usage, the addition of garbled nonsense, profanities and blanking of pages. More subtle forms of vandalism include height/weight changes and hoax generation.

To summarise, vandalism is executed with ill intentions, while good faith edits are executed with benign intentions.

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith

1. Good faith on Assault – no references or evidence Y
2. Good faith on Daily call sheet – unhelpful? Y
3. Good faith on Simon Hayes (sound engineer) – no references Y

Vandalism

1. Vandalism on Flash (Barry Allen) Y I would also like to say that type of vandalism is called blanking
2. Vandalism on Cube Y, also blanking
3. Vandalism on Orlando Bloom Y, blanking again

Warning and reporting

When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

We use warnings to advise users that their actions may have contravened a Wikipedia policy or been construed as bad-faith (e.g. vandalism). Warnings follow a set standard; the warning level increases if the contravention is repeated or becomes more serious. There are warning templates for each issue and contravention. In most cases, warnings are used in circumstances where clear evidence of vandalism or bad-faith exists. Warnings may also be used for good-faith test edits; the outcome of these is to assist and educate new users positively.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A Level 4im is also known as an Only Warning. This type of warning is appropriate in "cease and desist" cases where serious bad faith activity and contravention is clearly evidenced. 4im may be used when a specific registered user or IP repeatedly and excessively carries out acts of disruption and vandalism on Wikipedia. Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Yes, substitution should be used instead of transclusion. While substituted warnings are automatically delivered by automated tools, they can also be invoked manually. Place subst: before the template name inside the the curly brackets, like this: {{subst:your template}}. This is important because, if the warning template changes, the page containing said template will not.

Y

Don't forget to also give the reason why you reported them (this can be done with Twinkle). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

If a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning repeats their vandalism, they should immediately be reported on the WP:AIV (Administrator Intervention against Vandalism) user noticeboard.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.

1. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} is used as the Level 1 (first warning) for "blatant" vandalism. This warning is more informative and directs the user to the sandbox/reporter's talk page.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

2. {{subst:uw-disruptive2}} is used as the Level 2 warning for disruptive edits. This warning informs the user that their edits have been found disruptive, explains how to handle disputes (which may be arising) and aims to deter them from future contraventions.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

3. {{subst:Uw-test3}} is used as the Level 3 warning for users making test edits. This warning clearly notifies the user that continued (mainspace) test edits are considered a vandalism contravention and may lead to a block.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	TheQ Editor's Comment
1	Sorn Seavmey	Subtle height vandalism, undid with Level 1 warn	Y Seems good
2	Polycystic ovary syndrome	Second time this user added spam "healthy lifestyle" site to medical article, undid with Level 2 warn (already warned by other editor)	N I believe it does not breach WP:EL since it was put on a reference. See questions section. Also, I believe that was a good faith edit
3	Kawasaki Frontale	Unusual edit modifications to infobox, reverted with Level 1 warn	Y Maybe I would've warned him about not citing a reference
4	Appalachian Mountains	User blanked entire section, reverted with Level 1 warn	Question: In his edit summary, he wrote that it was 'Un-sourced - personal write up.' Therefore, I believe you should have discussed it with him on the talk page. I'll give it a ✓ Pass though
5	Enagh Lough	Text added by Shared IP user with long history of vandalism – (shared user may have bypassed IP disablement?)	Good revert, however remember to assume good faith. IPs are occasionally public, and sometimes bad-faith and good-faith editors use them.
6	Rural Life Centre, Tilford	Minor non-constructive edit to article prose, reverted with Level 1 warn	✓ Pass As below
7	Rural Life Centre, Tilford	Same article and user as above, user re-edited article with another minor non-constructive change. Reverted, level 2 warn.	Y, edit was test/vandalism. Good revert + correct template
8	Small	User re-edited page with non-constructive text removed earlier by ClueBot. Reverted, Level 2 warn.	Y Blatant vandalism
9	Toast Sandwich	Non-constructive edit. Reverted, Level 1 warn.	Y
10	List of Big Brother (UK) housemates	Non-constructive edit. Reverted, Level 2 warn. This user had an edit to the same page reverted by another editor; the editor didn't warn the user on their talk page.	✓ Pass, however you should've warned him about not citing a reference.
11	Long weekend	Non-constructive edit. Reverted, Level 1 warn.	Y
12	Pokémon Go	Looks like a test edit – detected with the New User Contributions page. User added excessive Wikilinks to the page. Reverted, Level 1 {{uw-test1}} tag added.	✓ Pass. Please note, however, that the problem with that edit was that it breached the manual of style policy. Correct template for what you thought it was.
13	Jamaicans	Looks like a test edit to the Trinidad and Tobago population. Reverted, Level 1 {{uw-test1}} tag added.	Again, WP:MOS. ✓ Pass.
14	Multiple diffs, user blocked. Please see user contribs	Submitted AIV report as user was evidently a vandalism-only bad faith account, user now blocked	Y All good
15	Multiple diffs, user blocked. Please see user contribs	Submitted AIV report as user was making vandalism edits in bad faith (despite warnings), user now blocked	Might've game him a 4im warning before reporting, but still a ✓ Pass

Shared IP tagging

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

• {{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
• {{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
• {{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
• {{Shared IP gov}} - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
• {{Shared IP corp}} - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
• {{Shared IP address (public)}} - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
• {{Mobile IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
• {{Dynamic IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
• {{Static IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:

• {{OW}} for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
• {{Old IP warnings top}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
• {{Warning archive notice}} for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.

Twinkle

The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions. I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

STiki

STiki consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.

Huggle

Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.

Dealing with difficult users

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

"Feeding the trolls" (giving recognition to these users) is referenced in the WP:DENY essay, which outlines how recognition is often a motivating factor behind vandalism incidents. Giving trolls and vandals recognition from popular culture leads to the vandals developing a self-absorbed sense of "infamy" and notoriety. Denying recognition to these users actively negates their motivation to continue vandalising Wikipedia pages.

Y Perfectly put. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

A good-faith user enquiring about a revert should present their case in a courteous manner on the talk page, showing civility and genuineness. On the other hand, a harassing user (e.g. troll) operates in bad faith, and may try to blank the talk page, use profanities or attempt to assert themselves in an abusive manner.

Y Nice. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A page should be semi-protected when it has received a large quantity of edits from IP users (unregistered) and/or newly registered accounts. Semi-protection of pages prevents disruption and sockpuppetry, and is especially useful in BLP cases.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

A page should be pending changes L1 protected when vandalism incidents become persistent or BLP/copyright policy is violated. Pending changes protection may also be useful as a temporary response to pages gaining significant media/cultural attention.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

There are several different circumstances justifying a page being fully protected. If an article is receiving a "sustained" influx of autoconfirmed vandalism edits, a full protection request may be accepted; this may also involve sockpuppet users. Edit wars between conflicting editors is another circumstance, where a full protection request forces the involved parties to reach a suitable consensus without any more reverts.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be template protected?

Template protection should be used for pages with a significant amount of transclusions (as an alternative to full protection). This protection level should be applied to "high risk" templates and Wikipedia modules.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?

"Bad articles" which are repeatedly recreated after a CSD request (or other form of deletion) can be creation protected with a case-sensitive "salted" request. This is an administrator-set special protection measure.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?

Talk pages are not usually set under protection requests. However, a talk page may be temporarily semi-protected if a severe vandalism event is taking place (e.g. major influx of sustained edits). Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Successfully requested RPP for Niantic, Inc. page on the basis that multiple edits have been made regarding the reliability/stability of Pokémon Go. Other users may begin to make similar complaints on the page.

One month temporary semi-protect applied. Here is the request page, approved request diff and successful protection diff.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What user right must you have to edit pages under semi-protection?

The user right for semi-protected editing is at least autoconfirmed (or confirmed in manually added cases).

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What user right must you have to edit pages under pending changes protection?

The user right for pending change editing depends:

• If you are a non-confirmed or unregistered user, your changes will be subject to review.
• If you are autoconfirmed, confirmed or extended confirmed, your changes will become live if there are no other pending changes.
• If you are a reviewer or administrator, any changes can become live immediately and you can review pending changes.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What user right must you have to edit pages under full protection?

A page under full protection can only be edited by administrators (edits go live immediately).

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What user right must you have to edit pages under template protection?

A page under template protection can be edited by a template editor (this goes live immediately). Administrators can also edit template-protected pages immediately. Reviewers can edit template-protected pages if they have the template editor right assigned.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

A page should be speedily deleted if it contravenes one (or more) of the generally agreed CSD criteria. This includes vandalism, deletion by user request, no indication of importance and obvious invention. CSD allows any user to nominate a page for deletion; this is reviewed by an administrator. In certain cases, CSD may not be the best option – stub articles, redirects and mergers are alternative options. The page creator should not remove a CSD tag, but instead click on the "contest deletion" button.

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

I have made a variety of successful CSD requests since obtaining autoconfirmed rights. Examples include:

• 09:16, July 28, 2016 Y
• 13:43, July 28, 2016 Y
• 14:23, July 28, 2016
• 21:07, July 28, 2016
• 21:08, July 28, 2016

Haven't checked the rest but I trust that they are fine. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Usernames

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

• Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
• Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
• Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
• Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

DJohnson

I wouldn't flag anything here, this username looks fine (a person's name shouldn't be misleading, unless it is very similar to another user). Could be "Dan Johnson" or "Diana Johnson," for instance.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

This is a promotional username which may have made edits in breach of COI policy. I would see if the user had made any promotional/COI edits; possibly reporting to the UAA noticeboard.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fuqudik

This is an offensive username containing shortened profanities. I would report to the UAA noticeboard. This could also be flagged with the {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}} tag.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ColesStaff

This is likely to be a promotional username linked to the staff editors (likely COI) of the "Coles" organisation. As above, I would see if the user had made any promotional/COI edits; possibly reporting to the UAA noticeboard.

Y It's good that you wrote that you would check if the editor/s has made any promotional edits. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

~~~~

A username replicating the signature Wiki markup is clearly misleading and can be reported to the UAA noticeboard. This could also be flagged with the {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}} tag.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

A logged in user with an IP-like username is clearly misleading and can be reported to the UAA noticeboard. This could also be flagged with the {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}} tag.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

This is a disruptive username (personal attack) which should be reported to UAA.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Progress test

Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

This would be considered vandalism, on the basis that the IP user has made edits containing uncited personal attacks (offensive) contrary to the Vandalism policy and associated guidelines.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

The edits are breaching WP:VANDAL and also affect WP:BLP (due to personal attack and lack of sourcing).

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?

I would recommend the use of {{subst:Uw-defamatory2}} as minimum; a higher level should be applied if the user has a history of vandalism edits. Alternatively, {{subst:uw-disruptive2}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} could be applied.

 Question: Why wouldn't you place the first defamatory warning? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The edits are clearly vandalism in bad faith; WP:UWLEVELS states that Level 1 is a notice to Assume Good Faith. As such, I would place a Level 2 (no faith assumption) warning at minimum, escalating if necessary.

✓ Pass Well said. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

No, reverting "obvious vandalism" ("edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism") is not considered applicable to WP:3RR.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?

As the user is posting from an unregistered IP, {{IPvandal}} should be used.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

I would report violations of the WP:VANDAL and WP:BLP policies, adding offensive personal attacks which are uncited.

Don't forget that you should link at least one diff to make it easier for the patrolling administrator (most likely Widr) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

This is likely to be a good-faith (non-vandal) test edit, in which the user is testing out Wikipedia functionality. Assume good faith and monitor user contributions.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?

I would apply {{subst:Uw-test1}}.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?

Rollback-AGF (Green) – AGF is "Assume Good Faith," please see above for reasoning.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

No, the user has not received a Level 4 or Level 4im (Only Warning) on their talk page; their activity should be monitored for any further contraventions.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?

If the account becomes a vandalism-only bad faith account, an indefinite block should be applicable.

✗ Fail I'm going to be quite strict on this. Every user should be blocked if they vandalise after a level 4 warning. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?

The user has a registered account, so {{tl|vandal}} can be applied.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

I would refer to the persistent vandalism (despite increasing warnings), citing diffs and logs of the reverts made to evidence their bad faith.

Y Good, you added 'citing diffs.' Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Scenario 3

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

• Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

Yes, I would use Rollback-Vandal (Red) in WP:TWINKLE for the revert.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?

I would use {{subst:uw-advert1}} or {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} – this is a clear WP:COI case.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

Yes, I would flag WP:CSD G11 (spam/promotional) or G12 (copyright violation from company website).

Y, don't forget you can use {{db-multiple}}. See this for explanation how to. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?

Yes, I would leave the following: {{subst:Uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}}

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

I think a report to UAA would be useful, on the basis of the username being promotional.

Y Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Results

'Your Score: 16.5/18, 92% '

Rollback

Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

Rollback may be used to revert "obvious" vandalism edits, edits that you have made (e.g. accidental change in user space) and edits made by a banned or confused editor. The final type of rollback must be justified with talk page and/or revert summary comments.

Rollback might be used accidentally, but these changes can be re-reverted. Rollback should not be used to revert good-faith edits (which an editor has a disagreement with) or in any abusive manner.

Tools

There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE & WP:STIKI.

Would you like to learn to use either of these tools?

Yes, I might be interested in using Huggle to assist with counter-vandalism work.

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After five days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message in the 'questions' section. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

 Acknowledged I will continue to revert vandalism and contribute to Wikipedia over this period. So far, I've made some more reverts, AIV reports, UAA, RPP and a sockpuppet investigation. Thanks for your help! Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 11:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Final Exam

When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.

   I would first consider this edit good faith, on the basis that it might be an editing test or experiment. As such, I would revert the edit (Twinkle: Rollback AGF) and use the "Warn" tool to leave a {{subst:uw-test1}} message on the user's talk page. If the user continues to add non-constructive gibberish to articles, I would revert with Twinkle (Rollback: VANDAL) and increase the warning level until reaching a Level 4 vandalism tag. If the user persists, I would file an AIV report.

2. A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

   Because {{subst:uw-articlesig}} is a single-level advisory template, I would consider the next edit as one of good faith and handle this accordingly. I would revert with Twinkle (Rollback: AGF) and Warn with {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} or {{subst:uw-test1}} on the user's talk page. In the event of further edits, I would escalate the warning scale and revert with Rollback: VANDAL until reaching Level 4. If the user persists, I would file an AIV report.

3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

   I would consider this vandalism, on the basis that the edit is not constructive, nor is the information reliably sourced as necessary. It is likely tht this edit would be reverted by ClueBot NG. If I had to take action, I would revert with Rollback: VANDAL and tag {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on the user's talk page. If the user persists, I would escalate the vandalism warning level until reaching Level 4. If the user persists, I would file an AIV report.

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

   I would consider this a good faith edit; this is clearly a first-time editing test. As such, I would revert with Rollback: AGF and leave a {{subst:uw-test1}} message on the user's talk page. If the user continues to make similar "I can edit this" style changes, I would escalate the warning level until reaching a Level 4 vandalism tag. As above, if the user persists, I would file an AIV report.

5. A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

   In the first instance, I would consider this a good faith edit and would revert with Rollback: AGF. As the user has left an edit summary (albeit unconstructive), I would hesitate to warn the user with a {{subst:uw-delete1}} tag. I would add an additional message to the user's talk page, requesting that they discuss their thoughts on the article's talk page, and might use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} as an alternative. If the user has a positive contribution history, I would consider this an editorial dispute and steer the discussion away from a potential instance of edit warring, instead bringing the matter to Dispute Resolution. If the user has a negative contribution history, I would escalate the {{subst:uw-delete1}} warning until reaching Level 4. As above, if the user persists, I would file an AIV report and may request the page in question receives semi-protection on RPP.

Part 2 (15%)

Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

   {{subst:uw-delete1}} – if no evidence of prior vandalism, Assume Good Faith and treat as an editing mistake. Otherwise, start with {{subst:uw-delete2}}

2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

   {{subst:uw-attempt2}} – this warning starts at Level 2 because there is no good faith assumption (clearly non-constructive edit)

3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

   {{subst:uw-efsummary}}

4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

   {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} – use Level 2 warning from the start as there is no good faith assumption (clearly non-constructive edit)

5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

   {{subst:uw-delete1}}

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   {{subst:uw-test}}

7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

   {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

   {{subst:uw-biog1}} – requires citation to reliable source(s).

9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

   {{subst:uw-delete2}} – the user has not been warned so a Level 2 warning should be used. If the user persists, I would immediately escalate the warnings and would file an AIV report. Additionally, I may request the page in question receives semi-protection on RPP.

10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

    I would immediately make an AIV report, using the Twinkle ARV module.

11. A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).

    Given the user's negative history, I would not want to "feed the troll(s)" and generate additional attention (which is a core motivating factor behind acts of vandalism). As such, I would file reports at AIV and/or ANI.

12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

    {{subst:uw-image1}}

Part 3 (10%)

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

   {{db-spam}} (CSD G11)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

   {{db-vandalism}} (CSD G3)

3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

   {{db-nocontext}} (CSD A1)

4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

   {{db-hoax}} (CSD G3)

5. Fuck Wiki!

   {{db-vandalism}} (CSD G3) or {{db-attack}} (CSD G10)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

• A user blanks a page they very recently created.

I would consider this an author-requested deletion and tag with {{db-author}} as long as the CSD G7 criteria is met.

• After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

I would revert the edit and warn the user with a {{subst:uw-speedy1}} tag (via Twinkle Rollback: VANDAL and Warn). I would add an additional message on the article talk page to ask the user about their intentions for the page.

Part 4 (10%)

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).

1. TheMainStreetBand

   This is a promotional username which may contravene the username policy. I would leave a {{subst:Uw-username|Promotional username}} warning on the user's talk page. If the user makes promotional edits, breaches COI or attempts to promote themselves, I would immediately report to UAA.

2. Poopbubbles

   This is an offensive username which contravenes the username policy. I would immediately report to UAA.

3. Brian's Bot

   I would attempt to find out whether the account has been granted bot permissions (for a specific purpose), possibly reporting to UAA or asking an administrator for a second opinion via ANI.

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

   This would be classed as a confusing username and could be construed as spammy; I would leave a {{subst:Uw-username|Non-constructive username}} warning on the user's talk page. While the username is not in breach of technical or policy requirements, I woudl recommend that the user creates a new username to edit constructively.

5. Bobsysop

   This is a misleading username, as it makes a clear reference to "sysop" which contravenes the username policy. I would immediately report to UAA.

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

   This is a misleading username, as it makes a clear reference to a timestamp which contravenes the username policy. I would immediately report to UAA.

7. PMiller

   There are no issues with this username. Unless there is definite evidence of impersonation or defamation, this is simply a "first initial + surname."

8. OfficialJustinBieber

   This is a misleading username and can also be considered promotional. The word "official" contravenes the username policy; I would immediately report to UAA.

Part 5 (10%)

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

   No – reverting obvious vandalism ("edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism") does not breach the 3RR rule.

2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

   Vandalism-only accounts should be reported to AIV; information about the AIV procedure is provided on the AIV page and WP:GAIAV.

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

   Complex cases should be flagged for administrator attention at ANI, so that the appropriate action(s) can be taken as a result. Information about ANI is provided on the same Noticeboard page.

4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

   Blatant username policy breaches should be reported to UAA. Information is provided on WP:UAAI and the Username Policy itself.

5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?

   These cases should be flagged for administrator attention at ANI. Information about ANI is provided on the same Noticeboard page, and ensures that the appropriate further steps are taken.

6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?

   The AN3 edit warring noticeboard should be used to report edit wars ("active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule"). Information on procedure is provided on the same Noticeboard page; additional details on obtaining diffs can be found on the Diff Guide. Diffs should be used to clearly evidence the edit warring in progress.

7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

   The BLPN noticeboard can be used to report and discuss ambiguous violations of WP:BLP. Instructions are clearly provided on the same Noticeboard page. BLPN is only for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period."

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

 In progress – working on this section!

1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.

1. Vandalism on Bookmarklet – section blanked, user Level 1 warned
2. Vandalism on Grand Theft Auto V – non-constructive edit made, user Level 1 warned
3. Vandalism on Jason Bourne (film) – clearly a spam URL, user Level 1 warned

2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

1. Good faith on Mozambique (test or mistaken) – user welcomed and warned. I added the warning first by mistake; meant to Welcome the user first.
2. Good faith on Avril Lavigne (album) (edited without citing a reliable source) – user welcomed and warned

3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.

1. AIV report regarding
2. AIV report regarding

4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.

1. Protection request for
2. Protection request for

5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.

1. Pending CSD nomination on Tom Knibbs – clear autobiographical (COI) page created by non-notable individual. Flagged under CSD A7 and G11.

6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.

1. Username policy report for

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	5		25
2	11		15
3	8		10
4	8		10
5	7		10
6	18		30
TOTAL	51		100